Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Most photo printing places, including WalMart or Walgreens, will refuse to print the pictures without a written release from the photographer. I had a friend (who did photography as a side business) take pictures at my wedding. I was given the raw files and did all the post work myself. Without a letter they still refused me even though they were my pictures to print. Since I wasn't doing anything sketchy, I printed up my own release form. I also had to give copies of that form to everyone in our extended families.

The article is light on details, which is giving me some trouble forming an opinion. If the photographer published these pictures then I agree wholeheartedly that doing so is an invasion of the subjects privacy. On the other hand, if I were to take some intimate pictures of my partner solely for my own enjoyment* that's a different matter entirely.

*How much enjoyment is to be had depends on how clean or messy the break-up was, I suppose.

FYI, photography isn't just a matter of copyright in Germany. There are other rights that need to be considered too. There are limits to what you can take pictures of.

One limit is what gave Google trouble with their StreetView images: You need to get permission to take pictures of private properties, except from perspectives which are available to anyone on public ground (without ladders or other tools). Many of Google's StreetView pictures were initially taken with too tall a boom, which looked over hedges and such.

Another limit is the right to ones own picture: You generally need permission to take pictures of people, but there are some exceptions: People who are just "Beiwerk", i.e. just random bystanders who are not a dominant part of the picture, don't need to be asked for permission. Another exception is anyone who implicitly agrees to be photographed (e.g. smiles into the camera, poses, etc.). There are several more exceptions. Some of these exceptions are limited to certain uses of the picture (e.g. not in advertising).

And then there's "allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht", which loosely translates to personal rights. It's what this case is about. The Persönlichkeitsrecht" is a wide ranging right which in particular encompasses the right to privacy and protects the private sphere (innermost and most personal thoughts and feelings and sexuality). This is a very fundamental right and usually wins out over less fundamental rights, like that of a photographer to use the pictures he took.

the article clearly states its all about distribution of these photos, which is a totally different thing and aims exactly at preventing revenge-porn-sites and similar crap. Of course you can keep smutty stuff if you dont release it and/or show it to others (though I think its your job to prove you didnt)